**Official** Group A Discussion

[Jono]

Not a real fan of the associates at the WC or believe that one outing every 4yrs really assists development. Like everyone I'm all for growing the game but reckon that tolerating them at the WC is offered up as evidence ICC is advancing the game when everyone's real objective is pimping it instead.

Hahaha go and get ****ed you snobby bastard. Cricket's played in more than 10 countries.

Haha "tolerating them at the WC". Go **** yourself, yeah?

I posted this article in another thread but its perhaps also worthwhile posting it here:

Blogs: Jarrod Kimber: The best eight? It's only the top three who matter | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

Before this tournament Ireland tied a game with Pakistan and lost the next match by two wickets. Ireland had no means of qualifying for this tournament, neither did Bangladesh nor Zimbabwe. Like Test cricket, it's by invitation only. No Banglas, no Zims, no Irish.

At the very least, imagine if the tournament was co-hosted by the Irish. That could be the future model. England and Ireland. India, Bangladesh and Nepal. Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. These are countries that love cricket. In Ireland they are making it as professional as you can outside the big eight. Nepal's cricket crowds are some of the best in the world. And according to Gideon Haigh's piece for the Nightwatchman, Papua New Guinea are mad for cricket.

That's a utopia where cricket outside the Test-playing nations is actually valued and pushed. Remember how the ICC is structured - ten votes for ten nations, three representatives for every other country that plays cricket.

Some fans and press have revelled in the top-eight notion. They have said that this is how the World Cup should be. It's quick. Every game matters. And there are no minnow games to ignore.

You can see their point. Of course, if you watch what is actually happening in world cricket, even the big eight don't matter. It's easy and lazy to point at India and suggest every single problem in the world of cricket leads back to them. But they have two able and willing accomplices who are happily making the big eight into a powerful three.

Australia, England and India are forming a cabal.

 

[uvelocity]

ban that cross posting **** for 6 months

 

[Uppercut]

I posted this article in another thread but its perhaps also worthwhile posting it here:

Blogs: Jarrod Kimber: The best eight? It's only the top three who matter | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

Before this tournament Ireland tied a game with Pakistan and lost the next match by two wickets. Ireland had no means of qualifying for this tournament, neither did Bangladesh nor Zimbabwe. Like Test cricket, it's by invitation only. No Banglas, no Zims, no Irish.

At the very least, imagine if the tournament was co-hosted by the Irish. That could be the future model. England and Ireland. India, Bangladesh and Nepal. Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. These are countries that love cricket. In Ireland they are making it as professional as you can outside the big eight. Nepal's cricket crowds are some of the best in the world. And according to Gideon Haigh's piece for the Nightwatchman, Papua New Guinea are mad for cricket.

That's a utopia where cricket outside the Test-playing nations is actually valued and pushed. Remember how the ICC is structured - ten votes for ten nations, three representatives for every other country that plays cricket.

Some fans and press have revelled in the top-eight notion. They have said that this is how the World Cup should be. It's quick. Every game matters. And there are no minnow games to ignore.

You can see their point. Of course, if you watch what is actually happening in world cricket, even the big eight don't matter. It's easy and lazy to point at India and suggest every single problem in the world of cricket leads back to them. But they have two able and willing accomplices who are happily making the big eight into a powerful three.

Australia, England and India are forming a cabal.

Yeah he has a point. If they wanted every game to be competitive then it was a pretty dumb idea to invite Australia to the '99-'07 World Cups.

 

[uvelocity]

haha i had to read that twice, thought you were insulting us at first!

 

[the big bambino]

I posted this article in another thread but its perhaps also worthwhile posting it here:

Blogs: Jarrod Kimber: The best eight? It's only the top three who matter | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

Before this tournament Ireland tied a game with Pakistan and lost the next match by two wickets. Ireland had no means of qualifying for this tournament, neither did Bangladesh nor Zimbabwe. Like Test cricket, it's by invitation only. No Banglas, no Zims, no Irish.

At the very least, imagine if the tournament was co-hosted by the Irish. That could be the future model. England and Ireland. India, Bangladesh and Nepal. Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. These are countries that love cricket. In Ireland they are making it as professional as you can outside the big eight. Nepal's cricket crowds are some of the best in the world. And according to Gideon Haigh's piece for the Nightwatchman, Papua New Guinea are mad for cricket.

That's a utopia where cricket outside the Test-playing nations is actually valued and pushed. Remember how the ICC is structured - ten votes for ten nations, three representatives for every other country that plays cricket.

Some fans and press have revelled in the top-eight notion. They have said that this is how the World Cup should be. It's quick. Every game matters. And there are no minnow games to ignore.

You can see their point. Of course, if you watch what is actually happening in world cricket, even the big eight don't matter. It's easy and lazy to point at India and suggest every single problem in the world of cricket leads back to them. But they have two able and willing accomplices who are happily making the big eight into a powerful three.

Australia, England and India are forming a cabal.

You posted that and missed the big issue. I was told to get ****ed, go **** myself and called a snobby bastard.

How unseemly.

 

[Jono]

Hey, take it up with GF and Uppercut. Leave me out of it.

 

[sledger]

Typical Jono, starting **** he can't finish.

 

[Howe_zat]

You posted that and missed the big issue. I was told to get ****ed, go **** myself and called a snobby bastard.

How unseemly.

You missed the world cup if you think half the sides there were to be 'tolerated'. Make a **** post and people won't bother taking it on board

 

[the big bambino]

Didn't realise it was such a touchy topic. I just don't think a wc spot thrown to associates every 4 yrs actually improves the game much but is used by the ICC to excuse any real investment in them.

 

[Maximas]

I must admit the associates are thrown into the deep end in the WC and they often just get laughed at. Bambino has a bit of a point as well, the ICC give them their time in the light and then they get smashed. That being said, I think the associates are getting better now, and they desperately need the exposure to overseas conditions and quality opposition. While the die-hard cricket fans on CW have no problem watching minnows, the ordinary person probably finds little value in these matches. There needs to be a more meaningful contribution to the development of associate nations if they are to compete in the WC, and that is the goal, not to be smashed and demoralized.

 

[Jono]

Typical Jono, starting **** he can't finish.

Results in me spending far too much time sitting on toilets...

 

[sledger]

If that keeps you off here, then so be it. It'll be tough, but CW will soldier on.

 

[Jono]

Nah can access CW from there

 

[sledger]

On the phone to the Kohli hotline no doubt.

 

[Jono]

On the phone to the "Kohli is hot" line no doubt.

fixed

 

[Furball]

Didn't realise it was such a touchy topic. I just don't think a wc spot thrown to associates every 4 yrs actually improves the game much but is used by the ICC to excuse any real investment in them.

It's not about improving the game. The World Cup is for everyone in the game, and it's important that people recognise that the game is more than 3, or 8, or 10 teams. Cricket's played in over 80 countries and the game achieves nothing if you shut 70 of those nations off from the game's big showpiece event.

If football had the same attitude to its World Cup that cricket does then it would be an 8 team event featuring teams from Europe and South America. Sure, it would be a better quality tournament but the tournament would lose a lot if we ignored Africa and Asia.

 

[sledger]

It's not about improving the game. The World Cup is for everyone in the game, and it's important that people recognise that the game is more than 3, or 8, or 10 teams. Cricket's played in over 80 countries and the game achieves nothing if you shut 70 of those nations off from the game's big showpiece event.

If football had the same attitude to its World Cup that cricket does then it would be an 8 team event featuring teams from Europe and South America. Sure, it would be a better quality tournament but the tournament would lose a lot if we ignored Africa and Asia.

Whilst this is true, it's not necessarily a falsehood to claim that the tournament could lose out by including more teams for the sake of it. Bigger does not mean better etc...

 

[Jono]

Bigger does not mean better etc...

You would say that wouldn't you Mr. Small Dick

 

[sledger]

You would say that wouldn't you Mr. Small Dick

Look, I've made it clear to you that the moment of the choppy of the pee pee is an extremely sensitive issue for me, and for you, and so we would do well not to bring it up publicly.

 

[Jono]

Best post.